Hero is an overused word.

If I hear the word 'hero' used inappropriately by the media again, I will scream.

The most recent occasion was, believe it or not, in relation to a golfer (yes, a golfer) who had won some trophy or other (being one of those people that think golf is a silly game that only spoils a good walk, I have no idea what tournament has been going on recently). Previous to that, the word was overused and abused during the Olympics with regard to our gold medallists.

Let's be clear on this, shall we? A hero is someone who puts his life on the line at extreme risk for the safety and security of others. Real heroes are selfless, brave and unassuming. Very often, the extreme bravery and courage they show is instinctive and if they had stopped to think about what they were doing, they probably wouldn't have gone there. Real heroes are rare things.

This eulogising by the media and in particular by TV journalists is quite simply a travesty of the English language. Top sportsmen and women are certainly tough and for many of their sports exhibit courage, but they fail on every other aspect of my definition of a hero. They certainly aren't self effacing or unassuming (quite a significant number of them court the media and make an absolute packet out of it), what they do is for themselves and let's not kid ourselves it's for "their country", and they aren't putting themselves on the line for others.

It's interesting that we very rarely hear the word 'hero' used about people that it might actually genuinely apply to - members of our armed forces on active service across the world, the police and ambulance service and the fire service all regularly face situations where they put themselves at risk for the sake of others and sometimes tragically lose their lives in doing so. But the term 'hero' isn't often used when these things are reported; instead we hear "s/he was a brave officer" or "s/he often put others before her/himself" even after the individual in question has died in pursuit of their duties. It's as though the press are afraid of using it in those situations, for some weird reason I can't fathom. But for some self promoting cyclist, male or female, who has enjoyed a modicum of success it's OK for some reason.

A while back I resolved to stop reading the papers because all they did was wind me up, and for a while I succeeded. then I slipped back into old ways and of course, it's impossible to avoid news reporting altogether; I am surrounded by TV, radio and trains full of commuters reading newspapers and I can't help but see it. And it still irritates me.

Perhaps the answer is to become a journalist myself and sell a freelance column with a slightly subversive view of the world to a local or national paper. Certainly the quality of writing could do with improvement. Hmmm, could be a new career path!

There's nothing on the telly!

The last two blogs I have written have been about TV programmes and I have sung their praises. But I have to say, they are in the minority. As Terry Wogan used to say on his radio show, "There's nothing on the telly". And by and large he was right.

Mostly, it is unadulterated rubbish. Improbable soaps where no one is ever happy and every misery known to man happens within the space of one year, badly acted American imports or endless repeats of classic comedies. Satellite telly is no better; more comedy repeats, inadequate American crime shows which have probably bombed on one yankie cable channel or another, out of date documentaries  and obscure minority sports which only a handful of anoraks watch.

We spend our time recording the very few shows we enjoy or think might be worth a go and then watching them on our few precious nights in. Which means if we aren't in the mood for an Italian moody detective and that's all that is on the Sky box, we have to resort to a DVD. We've watched most of them several times and they have lost their novelty somewhat, so in the end we turn the telly off and listen to music.  I really am coming round to the view - well not really but almost - that we could do without a TV and just listen to the radio, catching up with the few things we want via i-player on the computer. Strictly speaking we'd have to have a TV licence still, but who'd know? Well, I suppose all you lot reading this would now, but no one that really mattered in that respect.

However that's not going to happen - we still have teenagers who thrive on a diet of crap American drama and soaps, or take a voyeuristic thrill from cheap documentaries such as Police, Camera, Action! I have a small granddaughter that thinks Dora the Explorer is the best thing since sliced bread and worships at the shrine of Peppa Pig. Being able to fill the time occasionally with C Beebies or Nikolodeon can be a lifeline.

Quality dramas are few and far between. And I don't know why, because there is no shortage of classic material out there to draw on and surely it cannot be more expensive than importing stuff from abroad. Quality drama is usually where the beeb triumphs with only a few exceptions, Downton Abbey being one. Stephen Fry can be as sniffy as he likes about Downton, I think its brilliant and frankly I'd have loved to live the life of an aristo with servants and ball gowns.

I am just whiling the time away watching the Hairy Bikers Bake-athon, would you believe, because there is nothing else to watch and I wanted some background TV while I was writing this. But it's awful, and those grating Geordie accents are really getting up my nose. Excuse me, must get up and change the channel....